It's not just a coin it's a platform. Your going to try and tell me that encrypted messages, voice, and video that is totally decentralized is not useful? Hell it's a multi billion dollar feature. Do you really like the NSA collecting all your data, if anon is such a big deal I would also think that having an XC app on your computer or phone to chat, call or skype totally anonymous is a big deal.

tox.im already does this, and it does so in a way that cryptographers agree is reasonably safe.

Until we see a whitepaper detailing the cryptography and mathematics behind this anonymous, encrypted voice/video/chat it's nothing more than hype to sell a coin. Even when such a whitepaper is released (and please don't link me to whitepapers with walls of text and zero maths) it will have to be vetted and peer-reviewed before it can be considered excellent or even safe to implement.

First you plan, then you talk, then you publish a whitepaper, then you write code, then you release. Not the other way around.

My comment was geared towards the guy who was raving about the entire dev team. After losing my ass in crypto I pay a lot more attention to who associates with who. So consider that my fair warning to noobs.

ok so ring signature bloat is not a big deal...i believe you..so when will you have mobile wallets for XMR, is there an ETA 2020?

I tell you what. If you can't transact with Monero on most modern smartphones (Android, iOS, Blackberry, Windows Phone) by December 31st, 2014, I will eat an entire hat and film it on video.

Shout if you want this GPG signed to prove I'm not joking. Although you'll first need to understand what GPG is, and given your proclivity for ignoring cryptographic principles I don't suspect that to be plausible.

Jasinlee was not part of XC's original dev team. He volunteered to help with the XC project about 4-6 weeks after XC launched. His contributions toward the XC project are greatly appreciated, but his involvement with the XC project is limited and thus does not compromise the integrity of XC's platform or development.

Dan Metcalf is the original and lead developer of XC. XC's original dev team consists of Dan Metcalf and 4 other coders (not counting Jasinlee). Currently, the only coder besides Dan from the original dev team to have gone public is Christian Howe (the other 3 remain anonymous, but to my knowledge, were there from the beginning as well).

While I believe the above to be accurate, I am happy to be corrected on anything I just said.

Jasinlee was not part of XC's original dev team. He volunteered to help with the XC project about 4-6 weeks after XC launched. His contributions toward the XC project are greatly appreciated, but his involvement with the XC project is limited and thus does not compromise the integrity of XC's platform or development.

Dan Metcalf is the original and lead developer of XC. XC's original dev team consists of Dan Metcalf and 4 other coders (not counting Jasinlee). Currently, the only coder besides Dan from the original dev team to have gone public is Christian Howe (the other 3 remain anonymous, but to my knowledge, were there from the beginning as well).

While I believe the above to be accurate, I am happy to be corrected on anything I just said.

First you plan, then you talk, then you publish a whitepaper, then you write code, then you release. Not the other way around.

Nope. First you research, then you code, then you explain it to everyone (via a scholarly paper and other means).

Invert this order and you'll facilitate the creation of innumerable P&D coins that the general public will have a hard time distinguishing from the quality projects. And this hinders the entire altcoin phenomenon.

To not lend support to XC's way of doing things is, in effect, to lend support to an awfully unethical environment composed mostly of scams.

My comment was geared towards the guy who was raving about the entire dev team. After losing my ass in crypto I pay a lot more attention to who associates with who. So consider that my fair warning to noobs.

First you plan, then you talk, then you publish a whitepaper, then you write code, then you release. Not the other way around.

Nope. First you research, then you code, then you explain it to everyone (via a scholarly paper and other means).

Invert this order and you'll facilitate the creation of innumerable P&D coins that the general public will have a hard time distinguishing from the quality projects. And this hinders the entire altcoin phenomenon.

To not lend support to XC's way of doing things is, in effect, to lend support to an awfully unethical environment composed mostly of scams.

Nonsense - Satoshi released the whitepaper and received commentary on it before he released the code. Specifically, he released the whitepaper on 2008-11-01, and then he released Bitcoin 0.1 on 2009-01-09. I have no doubt he had a large portion of the code completed by the time he released the whitepaper, but those 2 months gave him time to refine things after discussions on the cryptography mailing list. This is important, especially with a cryptocurrency or other cryptography related projects, because you cannot have knowledge of all pitfalls a priori, and discussions with cryptographers and a peer review process at least allows the major ones to be removed.

About the only occurrence I've ever seen of cryptographically sound software being released before the whitepaper was BitMessage where they were both made available within days of each other in November, 2012. The difference is that he knew that no great amount of users were going to have their messages at risk initially, so there was time to fix major pitfalls. Additionally, nobody that got in to BitMessage early had any sort of financial advantage over those that got in later.

Doing things the other way round when you are dealing with people's money is not only grossly irresponsible, but incredibly dangerous. That there is closed-source code not even being made available for review is unconscionable. You should be ashamed of yourself for even thinking that this is a good idea.

"XC is a currency that you can skype on and the NSA can't find you plus you can buy a USB key. But mostly it's a currency"

wtf?

Consensus ... consensus is why XC is guaranteed to fail.

I lost a ton on another coin. Turns out I wasn't wrong .... on anything. Except taking consensus into consideration. It wasn't a scam, it wasn't a pump and dump, etc. I see more posts about innovation on your coin (just because I've been loosely following it due to Jasinlee) than ANY other coin. But it still takes huge dumps everytime it goes above 5 mil market cap. Even with all the "good news" it's harder and harder to "keep it up" ... the market cap I mean.

XCdoge has better marketing (horrific website aside) than most other coins too. More - more marketing would be the proper term.